The Elder Scrolls Online to include real-money shop atop subscription

In-game microtransactions are "not part of core game," however.

Just a few days ago, we first learned that the upcoming Elder Scrolls Online would eschew the free-to-play model in favor of a standard $15/month subscription that would provide what General Manager Matt Firor called "100 percent access to the game." Yesterday, though, Firor revealed in a new interview that the game will also include a shop that lets players purchase non-vital items and services with real money.

"There won't be anything like bonus points, but we'll have a shop to buy kind of fun stuff and services too, like name changes and things like that," Firor said in an interview with German site Buffed. "But it's not part of the core game. Anything in the core game is included in the subscription."

It's hard to know exactly what Firor means by "fun stuff," but it's likely the game will charge additional money for purely cosmetic items and other things that don't directly affect gameplay. Still, some players may bristle at being asked to pay additional money for anything on top of purchasing the base game and paying a monthly fee for access.

Back in July, game developer Blizzard also announced that it would add a cash shop to its subscription-based MMO World of Warcraft in certain regions. The shop will sell players items that directly affect gameplay stats, from experience buffs to Charms of Good Fortune to pets and mounts. That move follows the company's controversial deep integration of a real-money auction house into the gameplay of Diablo III.

UPDATE: This story originally incorrectly cited ESOHub as the source for the interview. Ars regrets the error.

Star Trek: Online tried to go this route, requiring both a subscription AND offering an in-game shop from day one. This never really sat well with the playerbase, because it appeared designed to nickel-and-dime from day one.

Blizzard has required those transactions for a long time, for sure, but not from day one. Whether it is by planning or design is irrelevant; they hooked their first couple of million players on the all-you-can-eat buffet before they added the premium section. Bethesda is adding the premium section from day one, and that's what's not right.

But I think we all know what's going to be in that shop: Armour for your mount.

If it's a reskin shop, like the only place you can get Plaid Daedric Armor, I don't care.If it's a nonfunction-but-not-otherwise-available shop, like fancy house furnishings, I still don't care.

But if they have shit like SW:TOR like XP boosts and whatnot, _then_ I'll be pissed.

4097 posts | registered Mar 29, 2001

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

Is it me or is this game looking less and less appealing everyday...Don't get me wrong, I have been excited about this for a long time now. I was even fine with the $15 monthly subscription in the hopes that it would truly prevail or the freemium methods so often used today. It just looks like they are trying to gobble up money at this point. Which is understandable but nonetheless, unappealing to me as a consumer.

Just like with F2P games, I wouldn't pay any extra money for "special items" or whatever, but it seems like they are taking the worst part of every model and combining it.1) Full $60 up front? Check2) $15 a month Sub? Check3) Real money in game payments? Check

Star Trek: Online tried to go this route, requiring both a subscription AND offering an in-game shop from day one. This never really sat well with the playerbase, because it appeared designed to nickel-and-dime from day one.

Blizzard has required those transactions for a long time, for sure, but not from day one. Whether it is by planning or design is irrelevant; they hooked their first couple of million players on the all-you-can-eat buffet before they added the premium section. Bethesda is adding the premium section from day one, and that's what's not right.

But I think we all know what's going to be in that shop: Armour for your mount.

They shouldn't be trying to double-dip. Mandatory subscriptions (as opposed to convenience ones) are dead in MMOs. This worries me because it shows they don't understand the MMO market or the changes that have happened in the last three years.

I love Oblivion and I do occasionally play MMOs, but I don't play enough to justify a $180 a year subscription + add-ons. I am sure there are some out there who do, but I will go months without playing any games, then bing for a couple of weeks. It is kind of like my Netflix account, at one point I went a year between returning the movies, thought about cancelling it, then binged on movies for a month. I just don't need another subscription service that I won't fully use.

I found the Elder Scrolls with their most recent release to be running REALLY thin on content. For the past (three? maybe beyond) you basically take over the same 5 guilds, you have a semi-tepid story line, and you're always a prisoner. The world isn't *precisely* bristling with new fresh ideas. Asking me to pay $60, then $15, then more for non-game important items seems absurd, especially since you haven't precisely piqued my interest enough to buy your title.

That being said, I think it's a shame that *good* subscription based gaming is just a thing of the past, since F2P is often far far from it. But if you want to charge me per month, I expect that to be the only money you're asking from me.

No. I'm not doing that. I'm not playing $15/month, plus the box plus the expansions AND having to deal with a cash-shop so I can buy horse armor. I'll just keep playing Guild Wars 2. I spend what I want, when I want and never have the nagging '$15 is being wasted' thing going on in my head when I take a playing break.

Blizzard has also required money for server transfers and name changes/race changes for years. They've also done the "charity" fundraisers for certain pets.

Anything much beyond that though and people are going to bristle. If this game requires real money to buy bank slots or instant bank access, it's over.

I'm bristling already, honestly. Bear in mind that there's an initial charge to purchase the game as well. Anything extra over a monthly charge, even if it's only cosmetic (which will consequently become a fashion item to distinguish 'serious' players), gets my splines all dereticulated.

You can have a freemium model, in which case I'll go in knowing that all the real-money-shilling items that annoy me are to some extent my own fault, or you can charge monthly, and for that I expect there to be no ads.

My favourite model will still be the one in which I buy a game and it remains mine to play, and I don't have to have an always-on internet connection if I just feel like playing in single-player mode.

Star Trek: Online tried to go this route, requiring both a subscription AND offering an in-game shop from day one. This never really sat well with the playerbase, because it appeared designed to nickel-and-dime from day one.

Blizzard has required those transactions for a long time, for sure, but not from day one. Whether it is by planning or design is irrelevant; they hooked their first couple of million players on the all-you-can-eat buffet before they added the premium section. Bethesda is adding the premium section from day one, and that's what's not right.

But I think we all know what's going to be in that shop: Armour for your mount.

I think STO has hit close to the right balance (maybe a wee bit on the 'greedy bastards' side), but it is still 'pay to win' to a large degree, most especially in what passes for PVP in the game. You CAN grind out dilithium and exchange it for Xen, which are the in-game currency for microtransactions, but boy does that take a long time as the exchange rate, at best, is around 100-to-1, Dilithium to Xen.

Now, there is no required subscription, but if you DO sub, you get minor perks that would otherwise cost microtransaction dollars, plus a monthly stipend of currency to spend in the in-game shop.

There is no in-game item store for the majority of World of Warcraft players. This store is currently only planned for those Asian markets which isn't actually ran by Blizzard itself. They license those rights to an Asian company, it recently changed in the last 3 years, but important fact to point out.

The in-game store might never be added to the NA and EU World of Warcraft service.

I consider the things sold on the Blizzard Store through a browser to be slightly different. They add nothing to the character ( a pet, mount, or new armor model is purely for looks ). For those Asian markets it will be possible to spend $5 and get an experience bonus for a period of time, those items for the time being, won't be offered to the NA and EU markets.

* Edit *

I read the article again, not even attention to the "certain regions", made me miss it. Its a single region for now, the Asian region, a region that supports this sort of thing.

I'm honestly ok with real-money transactions in-game if something is free to play.I'm honestly ok with a subscription if there's no cost to "buy the game".I'm honestly ok with a cost up front to "buy" the game.(I keep saying "buy" because with the direction it's all going, we're only buying a "license".)

Even in the case of GW2, where it's buy up front, and with in-game transactions, it's not that bad because the in game transactions really don't have THAT big of an impact on game play. Sure, if you really want to blow a couple hundred bucks, you can buy some nice gear. That nice gear really isn't much of a competitive advantage over what you can assemble with minimal effort.

But.... charging for the game up front, AND having a subscription, AND having the in-game money grab....I'm pretty much over that. It's a matter of balance. I expect something pretty damn solid if I'm being charged a sub of $15 a month on top of the "price of admission".

There is no in-game item store for the majority of World of Warcraft players. This store is currently only planned for those Asian markets which isn't actually ran by Blizzard itself. They license those rights to an Asian company, it recently changed in the last 3 years, but important fact to point out.

The in-game store might never be added to the NA and EU World of Warcraft service.

I consider the things sold on the Blizzard Store through a browser to be slightly different. They add nothing to the character ( a pet, mount, or new armor model is purely for looks ). For those Asian markets it will be possible to spend $5 and get an experience bonus for a period of time, those items for the time being, won't be offered to the NA and EU markets.

How is it wrong?

Quote:

Back in July, game developer Blizzard also announced that it would add a cash shop to its subscription-based MMO World of Warcraft in certain regions. The shop will sell players items that directly affect gameplay stats, from experience buffs to Charms of Good Fortune to pets and mounts. That move follows the company's controversial deep integration of a real-money auction house into the gameplay of Diablo III.

"Would add a cash shop in certain regions".

And again, "in-game item" can refer to pets, mounts, and cosmetic enhancements. Go back and look at some of the controversial items Blizzard introduced. people whined about mounts because they weren't "earned". Oh, and then the disco-lion pup which COULD be sold on the AH. Please explain how THAT wasn't an in-game item by your own definition, as it allowed me to reasonably convert real cash into in-game money without violation of the EULA.

Long time ago I took a stance that games are just set of rules preventing you from achieving a goal wrapped in a story and some gameplay mechanics. Still, compelling story and fun mechanics justifies the time spent with a game from time to time. But with F2P games I felt cheated, mechanics bent, story thrown out of the window (yo mister, if you want that scroll of wonders unbeknownst, gold coins I do not want, gimmeh some green printed cotton)... I see they try to find a new approach but from what I've read so far I feel like being cheated AND robbed

So, essentially they're going in with the same MMO payment scheme as Blizzard but without the pedigree. This is really gutsy but also very foolhardy. Good luck to them - I'm definitely not interested.

They HAVE RPG pedigree.They just don't have MMO pedigree.

Instead of focusing on building an awesome product and working on ensuring it works well out the gate, they're too damn focused on marketing and the money-grab. If you build a great game, make it work well first, get the fan base hooked, you can always add that extra stuff later.... but you HAVE to get customers in the door first.

What they're proposing is a huge turn-off to me. It tells me that their focus is not where it really belongs. Blizzard didn't get to be where they are from their most recent efforts. They got where they are with what they did with the WC and SC series and WoW from Vanilla through BC (and maybe Wrath).

Hearing the news about subscriptions was bad enough. ANY kind of (what I've heard called) "double dipping" is just plain greed in my eyes. It'll take a brilliant MMO and a brilliant Elder Scrolls game to change my mind on this one after all this...

I think STO has hit close to the right balance (maybe a wee bit on the 'greedy bastards' side), but it is still 'pay to win' to a large degree, most especially in what passes for PVP in the game. You CAN grind out dilithium and exchange it for Xen, which are the in-game currency for microtransactions, but boy does that take a long time as the exchange rate, at best, is around 100-to-1, Dilithium to Xen.

Now, there is no required subscription, but if you DO sub, you get minor perks that would otherwise cost microtransaction dollars, plus a monthly stipend of currency to spend in the in-game shop.

ST:O used to be subscription-only at launch. They had the in-game store out on day one; a direct analogy of Bethesda's plan. That's what I was referring to.

I haven't played the f2p iteration much though. On a f2p basis they might have struck a good balance, but I wasn't trying to bring that into the discussion.

I'll give it a go when it goes full f2p. Should take around a month after launch based on past experience. Sorry Bethesda, but WoW was the only one that could ever pull a month sub off and that is because it was the first big one. Times have changed.

I think STO has hit close to the right balance (maybe a wee bit on the 'greedy bastards' side), but it is still 'pay to win' to a large degree, most especially in what passes for PVP in the game. You CAN grind out dilithium and exchange it for Xen, which are the in-game currency for microtransactions, but boy does that take a long time as the exchange rate, at best, is around 100-to-1, Dilithium to Xen.

Now, there is no required subscription, but if you DO sub, you get minor perks that would otherwise cost microtransaction dollars, plus a monthly stipend of currency to spend in the in-game shop.

ST:O used to be subscription-only at launch. They had the in-game store out on day one; a direct analogy of Bethesda's plan. That's what I was referring to.

I haven't played the f2p iteration much though. On a f2p basis they might have struck a good balance, but I wasn't trying to bring that into the discussion.

Oh, I know what you were saying.My point is that an optional sub + otherwise f2p is not necessarily a bad place for an MMO, which it sounds like Elder Scrolls could end up at if, as you and others predict, the current scheme doesn't work out for them.

ESO: We're going subscription!Players: That was never a condition of our agreement!ESO: Perhaps you feel you are being treated unfairly?Players: No.ESO: And we'll have micro-transactions!Players: This deal is getting worse all the time! ESO: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.Players: Maybe I should give The Old Republic another look.